Tuesday, January 27, 2015

RENOWNED PROFESSORS EXPRESS CONCERNS WITH BILL 42

The scions of academia at Memorial University's Department of Political Science (and other departments) have written Premier Davis demanding his government repeal the controversial Bill-42. Two dozen 50 (and counting) renowned professors from Memorial and from universities up-along want the Davis Tories to withdraw its legislation to cut the number of seats in the House of Assembly.Bill 42 was rushed and did not reflect evidence based decision making or public input but the whim of a dying majority government, aided and abetted by the Official Opposition. The anti-democratic government picked a populist measure and the Liberals fell for it hook, line and sinker rather than take a principled stand against the obvious rushed political maneuvering. The seriousness of the democratic deficit and leadership vacuum facing our province is evident when our esteemed academics feel they must become engaged publicly to demand the best outcomes for the citizens of our province and protect our democratic institutions from partisan interference.Please find the letter for your consideration. It continues after the break.

January 25, 2015Dear MembersHouse of AssemblyNewfoundland and LabradorPO Box 8700St. John’s, NLA1B 4J6We the undersigned would like to express our extreme disappointment atthe manner in which Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act(2015), has been hurriedly pushed through the House of Assembly.While improvements to the democratic governance of the province aredesirable, and Members’ attention to this issue is valuable, the changescontained in Bill 42 only further undermine the effectiveness of the Houseof Assembly. As an institution, the House is intended to act asrepresentative of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as acheck on the executive power of cabinet and the office of the premier. Theproposal to cut the number of seats diminishes its ability to fulfill thoseroles. To put it bluntly, the legislation is undemocratic and ill-informed.

More to the point, the process by which this decision has been made isalarming. It is a long-standing Canadian principle that effort must be madeto ensure that redistribution be a fair and non-partisan process and thatcitizens have a chance to participate in the deliberations. The legislationsets an extremely tight timeline for citizens to give feedback on theeventual proposals for electoral boundaries. It also sets a series oflimitations on how the independent Boundary Commission should allocaterepresentation throughout the province, limitations that were drafted in themiddle of the night and passed before ANY member of the public had achance to review and comment on what was transpiring. This simply is notan acceptable way to manage the province’s electoral system. Why was itnecessary to rush and pass this Bill in the dark of the night?Bill 42 appears to be the product of partisan political maneuvering. Thebasic operation of our democratic institutions should be above this. Thedecision to start redistribution a year (and an election) ahead of schedule,while also drastically cutting the number of seats in the House, may reflectthe interests of the premier and the leader of the opposition, and they maybe the product of a cynical strategy to take advantage of publicdissatisfaction with the state of the House of Assembly, but all this onlyreinforces the suspicion that the goals of Bill 42 are partisan. And partisaninterests are not the same as the general public interest.Bill 42 is a poor piece of legislation. It appears to have been hurriedlythrown together to serve a variety of partisan goals, and it has been passedwithout any serious public participation. Rather than improve democraticgovernance, the Bill, and the events of January 22-23, illustrate much ofwhat is wrong with the state of democracy in our province.We call on the government to suspend this effort at redistribution. If theGovernment and official opposition wish to reform the house and make itmore effective, we, along with the rest of the public, would appreciate theopportunity to participate in a dialogue about how best to achieve this goal.Sincerely,Russell Alan Williams, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityLiam Swiss, Department of Sociology, Memorial UniversitySonja Boon, Department of Gender Studies, Memorial UniversityAmanda Bittner, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityChristopher Dunn, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityByron Sheldrick, Department of Political Science, University of GuelphVicki Hallett, Department of Gender Studies, Memorial UniversityElizabeth Goodyear-Grant, Department of Political Studies, Queen’sUniversityJosh Lepawsky, Department of Geography, Memorial UniversityStephen Tomblin, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityScott Matthews, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityRobin Whitaker, Department of Anthropology, Memorial UniversityKelly Blidook, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityLucian Ashworth, Department of Political Science, Memorial UniversityArn Keeling, Department of Geography, Memorial UniversityAilsa Craig, Department of Sociology, Memorial UniversityMarica Cassis, Department of History, Memorial UniversityMark C.J. Stoddart, Department of Sociology, Memorial UniversityDr. Jennifer Selby, Department of Religious Studies, Memorial UniversityCarol-Lynne D'Arcangelis, Department of Gender Studies, Memorial UniversityJ. Andrew Grant, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s UniversityDr. Patricia Dold, Department of Gender Studies, Memorial UniversityDr. Karen Lochead, Department of Political Science, Laurier University